DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/589,406. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of application number 18/589,406 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application, as detailed in the mapping table below, and as such anticipate claims 1-20 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application 18/583,355
Co-pending Application 18/589,406
An overlay system, comprising:
a storage element configured to store an executable graph-based model that comprises
a plurality of history nodes, a plurality of active nodes, and a plurality of history overlay nodes, wherein each active node, of the plurality of active nodes, is associated with (i) a set of history nodes of the plurality of history nodes, where the set of history nodes corresponds to a set of historical versions of the corresponding active node,
and (ii) a set of history overlay nodes, of the plurality of history overlay nodes, that is configured to facilitate generation and maintenance of the set of history nodes associated with the corresponding active node;
and processing circuitry that is coupled to the storage element, and configured to: receive a first stimulus associated with the overlay system;
identify, in the executable graph-based model for stimulus processing, based on a first context of the first stimulus,
(i) a first active node of the plurality of active nodes and (ii) one or more history nodes of a first set of history nodes associated with the first active node;
and execute an operation associated with the first stimulus based on (i) the first active node, (ii) a first set of history overlay nodes, of the plurality of history overlay nodes, associated with the first active node, and (iii) the identified one or more history nodes.
An overlay system, comprising:
a storage element configured to store an executable graph-based model that comprises:
a plurality of history message nodes; a plurality of history overlay nodes; and a plurality of active nodes, where each active node is associated with (i) a set of history message nodes, of the plurality of history message nodes, that represents a set of historical messages linked with a set of historical versions of the corresponding active node,
and (ii) a set of history overlay nodes, of the plurality of history overlay nodes, that is configured to facilitate creation and maintenance of the set of history message nodes;
and processing circuitry that is coupled to the storage element, and configured to: receive a first stimulus associated with the overlay system;
identify, based on a first context of the first stimulus,
(i) a first active node from the plurality of active nodes and (ii) one or more history message nodes from a first set of history message nodes associated with the first active node; create, in the executable graph-based model, one or more history nodes based on one or more historical messages represented by the one or more history message nodes, respectively, wherein each of the one or more history nodes corresponds to a historical version of the first active node; and execute an operation associated with the first stimulus based on (i) the first active node, (ii) a first set of history overlay nodes, of the plurality of history overlay nodes, associated with the first active node, and (iii) the created one or more history nodes.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-50 of US Patent No. 12,216,652. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,216,652 contain every element of claims 1-20 of the instant application, as detailed in the mapping table below, and as such anticipate claims 1-20 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Instant Application 18/589,406
US Patent No. 12,216,652
An overlay system, comprising:
a storage element configured to store an executable graph-based model that comprises
a plurality of history nodes, a plurality of active nodes, and a plurality of history overlay nodes,
wherein each active node, of the plurality of active nodes, is associated with (i) a set of history nodes of the plurality of history nodes, where the set of history nodes corresponds to a set of historical versions of the corresponding active node,
and (ii) a set of history overlay nodes, of the plurality of history overlay nodes, that is configured to facilitate generation and maintenance of the set of history nodes associated with the corresponding active node;
and processing circuitry that is coupled to the storage element, and configured to: receive a first stimulus associated with the overlay system;
identify, in the executable graph-based model for stimulus processing, based on a first context of the first stimulus,
(i) a first active node of the plurality of active nodes and (ii) one or more history nodes of a first set of history nodes associated with the first active node;
and execute an operation associated with the first stimulus based on (i) the first active node, (ii) a first set of history overlay nodes, of the plurality of history overlay nodes, associated with the first active node, and (iii) the identified one or more history nodes.
An overlay system, comprising:
a storage element configured to store an executable graph-based model that comprises
a plurality of nodes, a plurality of rule overlay nodes, and a plurality of data analysis overlay nodes, wherein each node, of the plurality of nodes, has a composition that includes a plurality of attribute values for a plurality of attributes associated with the corresponding node, and
wherein each node, of the plurality of nodes, is associated with (i) a rule overlay node that includes a set of rules, where execution of the set of rules on the composition of the corresponding node results in generation of a set of outputs indicative of evaluation of the corresponding node based on a set of data analysis parameters associated with the set of rules,
and (ii) a data analysis overlay node that is configured to determine, based on the set of outputs, whether a data analysis score associated with the corresponding node is above a data analysis score threshold;
and processing circuitry that is coupled to the storage element, and configured to: receive a first stimulus associated with the overlay system, wherein the first stimulus is indicative of a first data analysis operation;
identify, from the plurality of nodes, a first node associated with the first data analysis operation;
and execute the first data analysis operation using a first rule overlay node and a first data analysis overlay node associated with the first node, wherein the first data analysis operation indicates whether the data analysis score associated with the first node exceeds the data analysis score threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHANH B PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-4116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8am to 4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sanjiv Shah can be reached at (571)272-4098. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KHANH B PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2166
June 15, 2026
Prosecution Insights